Investigating the prior administration

[Belsnickel]

The conversation surrounding pardons and the current goings on regarding the election sparked a conversation about potential investigations into the Trump administration by the Biden administration. I wanted to spin this off into a separate thread to discuss what such investigations could mean broadly. Not whether or not Trump and his family/staff did anything illegal, but what kind of ramifications could there be for our country if Biden decides to let the investigations? What message does it send to not investigate and potentially prosecute illegal activity that may have occurred in the prior administration?

[*michaelsean*]

I don't have a problem with a legitimate investigation if there is ample evidence that crimes may have been committed. I would prefer it not be a dog and pony show aired on TV where everyone is performing for the cameras though.

[GMDino]

The idealist will reply....

Yes, if there is some evidence of wrongdoing it should be investigated whether it is a Democrat or Republican a Man or a Woman.

Clinton was investigated while in office, they are investigating Hunter Biden right now (and he's not even in office).  There is word that Jared Kushner is being investigated already.  

These happen and life in the US goes on.

I'd rather we punish the lawbreakers than let it slide just because of their elected positions. 

And I know, as I said, that makes me an idealist and that it won't ever be fair and equitable between those with power and the rest of us.

[Au165]

The President of the U.S. shouldn't be telling the FBI or the DOJ who, or who not, to investigate.

[BmorePat87]

Should? Yes. Will? not sure.

Republicans have decided to break every single precedent with Trump and pretend like nothing out of the ordinary is occurring. Democrats are justified in investigating the shit show that was the Trump Administration, but Republicans will lack any integrity and act like its a partisan witch hunt and use it as justification for countless frivolous investigations.

[hollodero]

I heard the point about not going after previous administrations to not set a precedent. It makes some sense. But then again, this also means that potential crimes would go unpunished, and I'm against that kind of de facto immunity.

I don't think Biden or anyone should actively order investigations or go on TV and talk about them in length. I do wonder though if it is about "the Biden admin" going after Trump world in the first place. Isn't it the (hopefully again to some extent) independent DOJ and all kings of federal or state prosecutors/AGs/etc. that would do so? I would be fully against stopping such efforts, and also against pardoning Trump people.

Also, if there was for example indeed Russian money laundering going on on a large scale, I feel there is a public need to know about that.

[Benton]

Aren't all administrations investigated, at least superficially?

[fredtoast]

(12-11-2020, 01:43 PM)Benton Wrote: Aren't all administrations investigated, at least superficially?

I think the question is "Now that he is out of power is it worth the trouble?".

Some would say it is better to just move on and try to put the "Trump Show" behind us.  I can understand that up to a point, but.  .  .  

1.  I am afraid Trump will not fade into the background like many ex-presidents do when they leave office.  In fact I thiunk he will work twice as hard to stir the shit now that he has lost the spotlight and pulpit of the Presidency.  So if he continues to try and exert power over policy decisions in mym mind that would mean we should continue to press the investigations of any illegal activity.

2.  It also depends on how serious the charges are.  It would probably be better to let minor abuses of power slide.  If not then they are just giving Trump more ability to "play the victim".  But if it is serious stuff or any type of illegal activity then it needs to be fully invetsigated

[Goalpost]

I'm not going to reference a certain news story. I can only speak of seeing some of Biden's news conferences where this is brought up in question, Mainly i think this is a news narrative. Biden seems to answer he's not interested in going that direction.

[NATI BENGALS]

The PPP was probably the biggest scam in the history of America. If the outgoing administration can investigate the investigators for years... Then yes. All the crimes committed by the conman and his minions should be investigated.

What’s the worst that could happen? A large portion of the population won’t believe the outcome and will cry about how unfair poor little Twump was treated. At some point they need to come back to reality or stick it up their ass. But we need to stop pandering to them.

[Tiger Teeth]

(12-11-2020, 02:08 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I think the question is "Now that he is out of power is it worth the trouble?".

Some would say it is better to just move on and try to put the "Trump Show" behind us.  I can understand that up to a point, but.  .  .  

1.  I am afraid Trump will not fade into the background like many ex-presidents do when they leave office.  In fact I thiunk he will work twice as hard to stir the shit now that he has lost the spotlight and pulpit of the Presidency.  So if he continues to try and exert power over policy decisions in mym mind that would mean we should continue to press the investigations of any illegal activity.

2.  It also depends on how serious the charges are.  It would probably be better to let minor abuses of power slide.  If not then they are just giving Trump more ability to "play the victim".  But if it is serious stuff or any type of illegal activity then it needs to be fully invetsigated

3.  I am convinced he's going to do something to divert the Nation and slink off to some country who likes him.  You know, Like Russia.

[CKwi88]

It's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation.

If the Trump administration is investigated it fuels the "witch hunt" narrative.

If not, it's impunity for easily the most overtly corrupt administration in our history and a terrible precedent.

I envy absolutely nothing about the position Biden is being put into. IMO, he doesn't investigate and leaves it up to state(s). Sort of a middle ground

[Belsnickel]

So here is the problem as I see it. The question of whether the incoming administration should investigate the prior one shouldn't even be a question. What should be happening is that a functional Congress and SCOTUS do their duty to hold an administration accountable for their decisions and take action against a sitting president when necessary. The idea that the DoJ would be the ones who have to take this sort of action isn't something our system of government was designed to handle.

The two-party system and the way so many elected officials put the party politics above what is good for the country to function as a healthy democracy is why we have gotten to this point.

All this is why this question is such a difficult one and it truly is a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario. There is no real right answer for the incoming administration because the right answer, how our system of government was designed to operate, has been nullified by partisan hacks.

All of that said, the best solution based on all of this is the appointment of a Special Prosecutor. In fact, what should happen is that Biden direct Durham to expand the scope of the investigation he has been given by Barr. If the question really is political influence in the DoJ, then cover the Trump administration as well. Durham is supposedly a stand-up guy, so Republicans should have no argument against it.

[hollodero]

(12-11-2020, 05:36 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Durham is supposedly a stand-up guy, so Republicans should have no argument against it.

Your argument and suggestion seems well thought out and makes a lot of sense - except for that point.

Trump just needs to tweet that Durham is a RINO and an angry democrat and dumb as a rock and a dog and whatever, and most Republicans will fall in line. It does not matter a single bit if there's any consistency of logic behind it. This is an autocratically led party, and so to a large portion of the party, the only single thing that matters is what Trump says. And this will not change, or it already would have.

Romney, on the other hand, won't have a problem with the idea.

[Belsnickel]

(12-11-2020, 06:29 PM)hollodero Wrote: Your argument and suggestion seems well thought out and makes a lot of sense - except for that point.

Trump just needs to tweet that Durham is a RINO and an angry democrat and dumb as a rock and a dog and whatever, and most Republicans will fall in line. It does not matter a single bit if there's any consistency of logic behind it. This is an autocratically led party, and so to a large portion of the party, the only single thing that matters is what Trump says. And this will not change, or it already would have.

Romney, on the other hand, won't have a problem with the idea.

Honestly, though, that's fine. Durham was appointed to look at the DoJ in the Obama administration and all these Republicans are on record saying he should be allowed to continue his work. If they turn around and denounce him then it's a win-win for Biden at that point.

[CKwi88]

(12-11-2020, 06:32 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Honestly, though, that's fine. Durham was appointed to look at the DoJ in the Obama administration and all these Republicans are on record saying he should be allowed to continue his work. If they turn around and denounce him then it's a win-win for Biden at that point.

Like how Republicans are on the record complaining about the deficit? Or on record about "abuse" of executive orders? Or that Supreme court judges shouldn't be confirmed in the last year of a president's term?

The blatant hypocrisy hasn't netted a win for the Democrat's, at this point it's just business as usual.

[hollodero]

(12-11-2020, 06:32 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Honestly, though, that's fine. Durham was appointed to look at the DoJ in the Obama administration and all these Republicans are on record saying he should be allowed to continue his work. If they turn around and denounce him then it's a win-win for Biden at that point.

Well, it is a win-win in your and my eyes. But 70% of republican voters, I heard, are convinced there was election fraud on a large scale. With zero evidence that held up in any court. They will not take on your and my perspective. They will not care about any glaring inconsistency. They never did. There's no win, only a win with people that did not believe Trump's lies in the first place. In short, your argument will possibly not change a single person's mind at this point. So where's the win?

I mean, Lindsey Graham was on such a record saying that if the shoe was on the other foot regarding SCOTUS openings in election years, he'd uphold his stance and people can "use his words against him" otherwise. Did he keep up to that, in no way. Did he still win his election convincingly, yes. It does not matter anymore.

[GMDino]

(12-11-2020, 01:43 PM)Benton Wrote: Aren't all administrations investigated, at least superficially?

In bits and pieces it seems.

State Department Office of Inspector General Report: Mike Pompeo’s Wife Took Six Unapproved Taxpayer-Funded Trips https://t.co/kkgoNAGenh

— #TuckFrump (@realTuckFrumper) December 11, 2020

 

[Big Boss]

If they suspect a crime had taken place, yes.

[GMDino]

Just to add a twist here:

Trump wants a special counsel named to investigate Hunter Biden.

Hunter is already under some form of investigation about a 2014 payment that was not amended to his taxes in 2017.

Given that his father with be POTUS in a few weeks normally such a call could be seen as avoiding any ethical problems for Joe Biden once he takes office.  But this is Trump.  More than likely, based on how he has acted and spoken for 50 years, it is more likely to be a malicious attempt to "get back" at Biden for beating him in the election.

For those who fear for the sanctity of the office if Biden looked into anything at all that Trump and his family and cronies may have done illegally....are you okay with this?